Ex Parte Barringer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311689819 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DENNIS R. BARRINGER, STEVEN C. MCINTOSH, BUDY D. NOTOHARDJONO, BRADLEY R. PATTON, and HOWARD P. WELZ ____________ Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Dennis R. Barringer et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 2 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to an assembly configured to enhance structural rigidity of at least one rack housing electronic components. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Claim 1. A ruggedization assembly configured to enhance structural rigidity of at least one rack housing electronic components, the ruggedization assembly comprising: a stiffener component mounted to a horizontal side of said rack, said stiffener component being expandable accordion-like such that expandability of said stiffener component connects said rack to at least one adjacent rack; a support component mounted in a substantially horizontal direction on a vertical side of said rack, said support component being configured to provide rotational support to said rack; and an enhancer component attached to at least one surface of said rack, wherein said enhancer component is configured to provide support points for said rack. THE PRIOR ART The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Jancsek US 6,036,290 Mar. 14, 2000 Claprood US 6,678,161 B1 Jan. 13, 2004 Mintie US 2004/0050008 A1 Mar. 18, 2004 THE REJECTIONS Claim 1stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Claprood and Mintie. Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 3 Claims 2-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Claprood, Mintie and Jancsek. OPINION Claim 1 – Obviousness Claprood and Mintie The Examiner has found that Claprood discloses all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 except that the stiffener is not “expandable accordion-like such that expandability of said stiffener component connects said rack to at least one adjacent rack.” Ans. 4. However, the Examiner also finds that Mintie teaches “an expandable accordion-like stiffener component (see annotated Fig. 2) connecting adjacent racks,” and takes the position that it would have been obvious to replace the stiffener of Claprood with the expandable stiffener of Mintie “since it would have allowed the distance between adjacent racks to be varied while still being secured to each other at the top, preventing accidental tip-over while adjusting the position of one of the racks.” Ans. 4. In answer to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner states that replacing the stiffener component of Claprood with that of Mintie is obvious because it is an improvement which yields predictable results, and that Mintie is analogous art because it “is pertinent to the problem with which the [A]ppellant[s] [are] concerned.” Ans. 11. Claprood discloses a pair of vertically extending frames 30-A and 30- B containing electronic components which are attached together by a stiffener1 component (top member) 40 mounted to top portions of the frames, that positions the frames relative to each other. See Claprood, col. 4, ll. 3-5; col. 5, ll. 1-11; figs. 2, 3. With regard to Appellants’ claim 1, 1 A thing that stiffens. See, e.g., www.dictionary.com. Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 4 Claprood fails to disclose the stiffener component “being expandable accordion-like such that expandability of said stiffener component connects said rack to at least one adjacent rack.” Mintie discloses, in Figure 1, a plurality of vertical structural elements (frame members) 12 connected together by “expandable accordion-type” components (trusses) 22 and 26, which engage structural elements 12 throughout their range of motion from the fully retracted position (Fig. 3) to the fully expanded position (Fig. 2). In Paragraph [0026], Mintie explains that [a]djacent vertical frame members in the lengthwise dimension are joined by a truss 22 on the front and rear of the enclosure which comprises a series of hinged articulated arms 24 extending between the vertical frame members 12 . . . . When the unit is collapsed into its folded and closed position, trusses 22 and trusses 26 close in an accordion action to permit the vertical frame members 12 to be moved toward each other until they are closely spaced in the closed position (emphasis added). Since expandable accordion-like truss 22 causes the orientation of the two vertical members to be maintained with respect to one another whether adjacent to or spaced from one another, truss 22 constitutes a stiffener component expandable accordion-like to connect one vertical component to an adjacent vertical component. Appellants assert that the Examiner correctly notes that Claprood fails to disclose an expandable, accordion-like stiffener component. App. Br. 8. Appellants, however, contend that Mintie fails to cure the deficiencies of Claprood because Mintie’s “vertical shafts indicated as ‘racks’ in annotated Fig. 2 are vertical frame members 12 of a single enclosure, not of different racks as alleged in the Office Action. Thus, Mintie fails to teach or suggest Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 5 that the articulated arm 24 . . . is used to connect the enclosure to at least one adjacent enclosure.” Id. at 9. Accordingly, Appellants contend that “an expandable accordion-like stiffener component connecting adjacent racks is taught by the prior art.” Id. at 9-10. We disagree with Appellants. As the Examiner explained, the rejection relies upon a combination of Claprood and Mintie. Ans. 10-11. Mintie is relied upon “to teach a stiffener component . . . that is expandable accordion-like.” Id. at 10. The Examiner based the rejection on using the expandable stiffener component of Mintie “to replace the non-expandable stiffener component of Claprood.” Id. at 10-11. As Appellants acknowledge, Claprood discloses frame connecting techniques to connect multiple electronic cabinets. See App. Br. 5. Appellants’ Specification explains that “[t]he term rack is used to simply imply housing or an assembly that stores such components.” Spec., para. [0020]. Claprood’s “electronic cabinets” are housings that store electronic components and thus disclose Appellants’ adjacent racks. Because Claprood’s connecting of adjacent electronic cabinets disclose connecting adjacent “racks,” Mintie need not also disclose connecting adjacent “racks.” See, e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”). Accordingly, Appellants’ argument—that the references as combined do not teach an expandable accordion-like stiffener component connecting adjacent racks—is not persuasive. Additionally, Appellants argue that Mintie is non-analogous art, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claims. App. Br. 11. “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 6 whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the present case, the problem with which Appellants are concerned is, according to the preamble of claim 1, “enhanc[ing] the structural rigidity of at least one rack housing electronic components.” It is our view that Mintie is reasonably pertinent to this problem, for it also is concerned with enhancing the structural rigidity of at least one vertically oriented component, that is, vertical frame members 12. Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments or evidence why this is not the case. Therefore, we consider Mintie to be analogous art. Appellants also argue that the Examiner has made a conclusory statement without articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings with regard to substituting Mintie's expandable accordion-like stiffener for Claprood’s fixed stiffener and the predictability of the results obtained by doing so. App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 1-3. Claprood enhances the structural rigidity of a vertically extending rack by means of plate 40, which is mounted to a top portion of frame 30-A and connects to a top portion of adjacent frame 30-B. Mintie enhances the structural rigidity of a vertically extending component by means of an expandable accordion-like stiffener 22 which is mounted on a first vertically extending frame member and connects to a second vertically extending frame member. While the structure of the Claprood stiffener differs from that of the Mintie stiffener, the result is the same, that is, they both “enhance structural rigidity” of at least one vertically extending component by connecting it to another such component. “The Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 7 combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As explained above, the substituted component and its function was known in the art, and we share the Examiner’s view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the Mintie stiffener for that of Claprood since it does no more than yield predictable results. Such is itself sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of obviousness, and under these circumstances an argument that some additional rationale is required is unpersuasive. In addition, Appellants assert that the rejection is based upon hindsight reasoning because “allowing the distance between adjacent racks to be varied while still being secured to each other is absent from the cited art and is only present in Appellant’s specification.” App. Br. 12. However, claim 1 requires only that the stiffener “connects said rack to at least one adjacent2 rack” (footnote added), and is devoid of language directed to allowing the distance between adjacent racks to be varied. It is clear that the stiffeners of both Claprood and Mintie meet the requirement in claim 1 in that they connect “adjacent” components. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. We have carefully considered all of the arguments presented by the Appellants in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, however, we have not been persuaded that the rejection of the claim 1 is in error, and the rejection is sustained. 2 Lying near, close, or contiguous. See, e.g., www.dictionary.com. Appeal 2011-005979 Application 11/689,819 8 Claims 2-20 – Obviousness Claprood, Mintie and Jancsek Appellants have chosen not to separately argue the patentability of claims 2-20, stating only that independent claims 2 and 18 “recite similar recitations as discussed above for claim 1,” that Jancsek “does not cure any of the Office Action’s deficiencies discussed above,” and that the same arguments as were made regarding claim 1 apply also to claims 2 and 18. App. Br. 13. This being the case, the rejection of claims 2-20 also is sustained. DECISION Both rejections are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation